Calling All KJB Defenders
 

After stating that I am a KJVO, someone linked me to this website. What do you guys that about this and what would you tell that person about this article?

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong[

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

You're not going to like my response.

After running this web site for 13 years, I no longer bother with such questions. I learned early on that if I make it my job to give account for every minutia of translation in the KJV, I would be able to do nothing else. Nor do I care to spend the time in "the originals" (their copies) that would entail. No matter how many verses you defend in the KJV, they will have yet more rabbit trails of translation they demand you traverse.

Instead, I recommend reading Crowned With Glory, because it tackles the most well-known "errors" in translation in the KJV. It hits the "big ones" and shows why the KJV is not mistranslating or wrong in various passages.

It is usually more profitable to focus on the transmission of the text and the unholy reliance upon corrupt humanistic texts that modern translators have. We can prove that the text underlying the modern versions is corrupt. Once that is done, we can show why the KJV is correct on several "problem texts" -- and this is done in Crowned With Glory. But at some point, faith must reign supreme over our intellectual pursuits. You are not going to convince a modernist that the KJV is God's word without error no matter how many of his challenges you answer. And time spent doing so is time not spent studying the perfect words of God.

Don't get me wrong. I think apologetics is great -- obviously I run an apologetics website. But personally, I have better things to do than run down a list of so-called "mistakes" in the KJV every time someone emails me a list. Such emails go right into the trash bin and have for many years now. I just don't have the time.

Ditto Diligent,
That is what I was thinking when I read this laundry list of so called mistakes. I have no desire to fall into this unbelievers trap and waste my time either, he will no doubt find more, even if every point was answered. I did, howeve, relay this to another forum just in case some one there has the time and wants to follow this trail and deal with some of these. Some one on the edge of believing the KJB might get the idea that KJB defenders by not responding are admitting that the KJB is not what we claim it is. Your suggestion of Crowned WIth Glory" is an excellent approach.

By the way, Dr. Holland gave me permission to post excerpts of his book on this website. The KJBP Faq page has quite a few of them under "Answers to criticisms of specific verses in the KJV." Crowned With Glory is also part of the SwordSearcher Bible Software library.

Why don't the scholars have a bible they think is absolutely correct after the hundreds of years of Bible translating? You'd think one of them would have produced one by now. Maybe they would fear being out of a job? The KJB's longevity alone attests to the fact God has honoured it, and still honours it.

The problem they are having is easily fixed. They are looking at a Westcott and Hort text, and then noticing there are all these things in the KJB that aren't in the westcott and hort greek text.

Luke, they don't even agree with each other. Final Authority scares some people.

Yes, there is really no final authority in the original languages today, and even all the editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with each other. As for Codex Aleph (Sinai) and Codex B (Vatican), they are disagreeing with each other more so. I am glad that God has produced one Bible version that is fit to be the worldwide standard!

I was surprised this did not get a response.
I'd like to know what standard of Received Text you believe your Bible is based on, and clarification on "no final authority in original languages". Is the Bible you read based on a faulty text? If not, what principles of textual criticism was used to arrive at this conclusion?
It was disturbing as your wording makes the comparison of the TR to the W+H, with the TR just not disagreeing "more so".
Are you also claiming double inspiration?
Maybe you answered some of these in your other posts. If you have a synopsis, short-condensed answer if possible, that would be appreciated. You can refer me to your site or posts.
Just curious.

I agree with your position. It is Biblical:

Ec*1:15 - That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

A great book showing 2 histories of the Bible by 2 different streams, the northern stream from Antioch, and the southern stream from Alexandria Egypt (Origen's Old Testament and Apocyrpha) is by David Daniels and illustrated by Jack Chick called Did The Roman Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? I let a guy I work with read it, and I could hardly get it back because several other people wanted to read it, its very well done. You can get it from Chick Publications or Amazon.

There is no final standard authority in the original languages that may be observed in one extant volume. What the 1611 translators did was gather from various sources, primarily TR editions (for the NT), but also in conference with other witness, e.g. the Vulgate. This means that the KJB text, which is a judicial gathering of the originals, and exactly correct throughout, is therefore better than any particular original manuscript or TR edition that can be produced or shown today.

Since there are slight wording and spelling differences in the TR editions, not is perfectly flawless.

No, because the translators of 1611 discerned the correct text from various sources, and translated it into English.

Textual criticism is a recent name for recent methodology. Such a name cannot be exactly applied with the same meanings to any (I suppose) pre-Enlightenment work in regard to editing, criticism or selection of correct readings. Also, true believers defer to divine providence and its manifestation through tradition which is received and kept by the universal priesthood of true Christian believers.

The W&H methodology is bad. And the result is bad. The TR methodology is good, but this does not guarantee that any Greek edition today is either perfectly flawless, or exactly correct. Moreover, the TRs have been superseded by the English Bible for exactness, perfection, flawlessness and purity.

No, the TR editions were not made by inspiration, and the final form of the Received Text, which is the KJB, was not made by inspiration from 1604-1611.

In summary, I am indicating that every correct reading is fully without addition or subtraction in the King James Bible. Moreover, every word in English is the exact translation of the original languages, fully to the sense and concepts thereof, and finally that every word in the King James Bible is so certain and sure, true and right, that so much as the distinction between “among” and “amongst” is entirely intended by God’s providential outworking, and study into these things would yield all the fullness of meaning and revelation, and that the Word of God in English is now alone the authority.

Why, as an English speaking person, do I need to care about the Hebrew or Greek? If I believe God will preserve His Word, do I really need to "check up" on Him? Since I don't speak those languages, how can I verify anything in regards to "the original says...". I have to take someone's word for it. God already took care of it for me. I'm satisfied with my KJB.

Bible Greek and Bible Hebrew are vital, important or even a bit helpful in evangelising which country?

I am satisified that God can and does use the KJB to reach the world.

In English alone?

Why not? However, ther are KJB equivalence in other languages, many of which were translated from the KJB, and not "the original..."

cody1611,
I had read many of these same "errors" before.
Actually, they are not errors at all, but interpretations by non-Bible believing heretics.
There are of course some "watered-down" Christians who have so squashed the Holy Ghost, as too no longer have any discernment.

Take for instance, my personal favorite, for the answer is right there for anyone to see; Acts 12:4., but one MUST go back to 12:3, to find the answer!

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (THEN WERE THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.)
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; INTENDING AFTER EASTER TO BRING HIM FORTH TO THE PEOPLE." (Acts 12:3-4)

Actually, the correct term is indeed "Easter" as the "Passover" had done past, the Jews were already in the "Days of unleavened bread,"which comes after the Passover. This rendering is also found in the TR based Bibles before the KJV.

"Strictly speaking the Passover only applied to the paschal supper and the feast of unleavened bread followed."-Peloubet's Bible Dictionary,(p.486)

In fact, Herod was not even a Jew, but an Edomite, and had a long association with the pagan religion of Babylonian(something Catholics also are involved with, either knowingly or unknowingly). I suggest you read Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons for interesting info. on pagan religions and how it pertains to EASTER.

I doubt you will ever convince anyone, however the Bible is pretty well self explanatory.

God bless!

The key here is "when?"

God did not use English to reach the world until about now. Already the King James Bible itself has gone forth to many places, and the English language now widely spoken, so this is all preperation for the next step.

And I am not saying that the Word of God was in English alone. I am talking about "around now".

What of the folks who have labored to bring accurate faithful translations to other languages NOW, and the folks who have received it? (e.g., the RVG Spanish Bible)

Since those Spanish folks have, are or will be learning English...

And since there is no entirely correct translation into Spanish, though some better than others...

It is obviously the best, and in line with God's providence, to yet yield to them a greater thing to be received, namely, the Word of God in English. There is a need for people to see that they are being called into the restitution of the "old ways".

While it was not a waste of time and wealth for the Word of God to be preached in Spanish, things are moving in the direction whereby it is now becoming a waste, in the big picture, because there really needs to be one unified Church in the world which agrees on doctrine and uses one Bible. If this is only possible in the Millennium, then the Gospel of Christ is weak.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19a, 20a).

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

“All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.” (Isaiah 18:3).

I see. God really didn't intend the confusion of tongues at Babel to endure through the age of grace, we are bringing in the kingdom now, and the RVG has not been blessed by Him and is now a futile effort for Christ's sake.

My, you are reading all kinds of things into what I have written. But it gives me opportunity to explain.

1. CONCERNING LANGUAGES AND THE REVERSAL OF BABEL

There are various Scriptures which show that God would turn the Jews to another language, e.g. “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.” (Isaiah 28:11). This tongue would be the same as the pure language spoken of in Zephaniah 3:9, which must be the Word of God in a Gentile language spoken throughout the world. Of course, this is Bible-English, and the Gentile language is English, the global language which even today is spoken by many Jews. Moreover, the Christians are supposed to preach to the Jews, that they should hear the Gospel from us (Romans 11:31), and show that we are blessed with the truth (see Romans 11:11, Romans 10:19 and Matthew 21:43) and bring them into it. Therefore, while other languages may well exist in the future, there is one true message which is coming forth in one language to the world (see Revelation 10:11). This also explains which language God should use to make known His name, as is prophesied in various places, such as in Ezekiel 39. Therefore, the Gospel being published among all nations, many hearing and so on is how God should make known His truth by His power through the Church. It is not God’s will that the Babel judgment should continue to impede the Church, but that while Pentecost was for bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles, as is exhibited through the Reformation, we must now come to God’s working of having a faithful Remnant that is able to bring the Gospel to the world, because the entire Church has grown up in Him, and has come together in the unity of the faith, which is to labour in reaping the Earth.

2. CONCERNING THE KINGDOM AND NOW

I am saying that before Christ returns to take away His Church, His Church must be glorious, powerful and sanctified. Christ is not returning for a defeated Church. The Kingdom of God has been present since Christ was baptised at Jordan, and whether nations do specific Christian acts should not be seen as the coming of the Kingdom of God (though there are signs of Christ’s return), nor as though the throne of Christ is presently on Earth, or is to be established at any time before the translation and tribulation.

One of the worst deceptions around is that the Kingdom of God is either equal to Rome, or equal to all differing denominations collectively, and even worse is the idea that Christians are to take hold of the Roman Kingdom and possess it, and even worse is to say that Christ is not coming to translate and take away His saints. All these teachings are directly differing to what I am saying.

3. CONCERNING THE FOREIGN BIBLES

It is obvious that Spanish Bibles have been blessed and accomplished good, just as the Geneva Bible has done so. But the Geneva Bible has been superseded by another Bible, and this same principle applies with the Spanish Bibles. It is not that they were “bad”, just that we have the purified-seven-times manifestation, which obviously surpasses the other things.

4. CONCERNING FUTILE EFFORTS

Just as for some years after 1611, the Geneva Bible still continued, so it can be considered in the present day concerning the better Spanish Bibles. If you look at what happened to the Geneva Bible, it is obvious that the King James Bible was accepted in two ways: 1. generally, and 2. by the most ardent Christians. There were attempts to continue the Geneva Bible by some (usually Presbyterian) Puritans. This parallels exactly today’s situation. We have a general acceptance of the King James Bible. We have an ardent minority who are zealous for fundamentalist Christianity, which is more and more linked with a King James Bible only view. And we have some who are in the “fundamentalist” category, but are open to “other good translations”, etc. I am happy to report that the true Puritan spirit prevailed over those who had the desire to schismaticise. Every attempt to replace the King James Bible was thwarted while the Puritans literally ruled England, and therefore we see that it is futile to resist God’s providence. You may even delight yourself to discover that while this sort of protectorial government was in place, the Cambridge printers had the mandate to print the King James Bible, which they did, and you might also note that what has manifested out of all that is what I have outlined above, namely, that Christ is most and best empowering those that do His will, and that this is not by chance, but being revealed and manifest by His Spirit.

What planet are you living on? Us English speaking people are going to have to learn Spanish in the next 20 years, here in American at least. Producing a more accurate Spanish translation isn't just going help the people who currently speak Spanish but also ourselves and our children, because the fact is, over here modern English is probably going to die out or become Spanglish in half a century or at least by the end of the century. Yet you expect all Spanish speaking people to learn English, and more absurdly to learn Elizabethan English to read the KJV? You're living in a phantasy world. God bless the translators who are trying to improve the Spanish translations. At least they're not sitting back pontificating out fantasy like you.

So you're part of the one-world-religion,-lets-all-unify-under-the-pope-and-worship-Mary-NWO crowd, eh? It's never a waste to preach the word of God, in any language, to any people, not even to people like you, since the word of God always performs that for which it was sent. Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." "Así será mi palabra que sale de mi boca: no volverá á mí vacía, antes hará lo que yo quiero, y será prosperada en aquello para que la envié." (Reina-Valera 1909)

The Bible never has said that everyone will beleive the gospel and that there will not be false churches. This shows how little you understand of the gospel. Jesus always said there would be few that are saved, the gate is strait and the way narrow, strive to enter the gate, etc. And Paul says "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor 11:19) If there ever is a one-world-church on this earth, it will be the church of antichrist.

Now, as to the imperfections of the Spanish Bibles, what imperfections are there in the 1909 Reina-Valera? They are few and small so far as I know, like Mark 1:2 saying "in Isaiah the prophet" rather than "in the prophets" (which is not going to make anyone fall into false doctrine!) "Como está escrito en Isaías el profeta: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti." It has 1 Tim 3:16 right "Y sin cotradicción, grande es el misterio de la piedad: Dios ha sido manifestado en carne...." and Acts 8:37 "Y Felipe dijo: Si crees de todo corazón, bien puedes. Y respondiendo, dijo: Creo que Jesucristo es el Hijo de Dios" and the Johanine comma in 1 Juan 5:7 "Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo, y el Espíritu Santo: y estos tres son uno." Fact is, the "Isaiah the prophet" rather than "prophets" thing in Mark 1:2 is the only standard inaccuracy that I can recall, and I'm not too concerned with it to be honest!

Fact is, "in Isaiah the prophet" isn't even different from "in the prophets" if you take "in Isaiah the prophet" as meaning "in the scroll of the prophets which we Jews commonly refer to by the name of Isaiah since he is the greatest of the prophets."

By the way, the original Reina-Valera is from 1602, predating the KJV, and the KJV translators diligently compared the translations of other languages, including this one. In a way, the KJV is based on the Reina-Valera at least partially. And due to the awkward construction of the Spanish possessive and other things it often matches the Greek more literally in word order than the KJV, which doesn't mean anything except that if you read the KJV, the Reina-Valera 1909 and Scrivener's text together, you notice that sometimes the Spanish just has a more literal word order feel to it.

Another claim of some against the 1909 is that the use of the word pontifice in Hebreos 3:1 "POR tanto, hermanos santos, participantes de la vocación celestial, considerad al Apóstol y Pontífice de nuestra profesión, Cristo Jesús;" which these men say supports the papacy because the pope is called a pontiff, and here this translation uses the word pontifice. They think that changing pontifice to summo sacerdote fixes the "problemo," pero no hay problemo! (there is no problem) The reason why Catholics call the pope pontifex is that pontifex is a Latin word meaning "high priest" and they see the pope as their high priest. In fact, they call the pope "pontifex maximus" or "highest high priest." But here, who does the Spanish Reina-Valera of 1909 call Pontifice? JESUS CHRIST! In other words, so far from supporting the papacy it blasts it to smitherines! Fact is, those who want to change the word pontifice to summo sacerdote here are probably crypto-Catholics, tired of the tried and true Reina-Valera 1909 disrpoving their claim that the pope is pontifice. (But I am no expert in Spanish. Just mi opinion. I see that the RVG uses "Sumo Sacerdote" and that's fine, since it means High Priest. But I do think that saying Pontifice is an error is just silly.)

The one where English is being set as the global language, i.e. Earth. The same planet which should have a strong Christian witness, where the minority should be papists, antichrist-believers, railers and other heretics, but the majority as Bible loving Christians.

When the Scripture said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14), it was not actually saying that the Church would be defeated when Christ returns. This verse is not saying that the true Church is always a mere remnant or minority. In fact, Jesus showed that there would be many false brethren, if many false, how much more true? (Or is God too weak to get many saved?) Again, Jesus showed the Church should grow might, that it should be a sanctified and glorious Church for His return: "Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Matthew 13:32). The King James Bible believing way is the way of victory.

That you are not. Before arriving at judgment, why don't you ask Dr. Gomez what lengths he took to consider, including every single jot and tittle, before bringing any changes to RV-1909.

www.reinavaleragomez.com

.

Is God too weak to get ALL saved? No--and yet all will not be saved. That shows how puerile your logic is. Jesus himself says few will be saved, and you want to argue with the Lord Himself.

(Luke 13:23-24) "Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."

And in another place Mat 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

You can be a dork all you want and call God weak for not saving everyone, but that's just dorky Satan worship. Repent and beleive the gospel before it is too late.

(Mark 1:14-15) "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Soph moros - wise fool,
Whether you disagree with Bibleprotector or not (I do not on many points), you're out of line calling him dorky and insinuating he is an unsaved Satan worshiper. He has been a gentleman on this site and does not deserve your attacks and taunts. Cool it.

This is good advice. Maybe one week will help.

Thank you, brother Brandon - it was really discouraging to read his posts and manner of posting. There is a huge difference between contending for an issue (and the faith) and just being contentious.